The Department of Homeland Security has released its 2012 Privacy
Office Annual Report to Congress. The report details the expansion of
the National Counterterrorism Center’s five-year retention policy for
records on US Persons, the agency’s social media-monitoring initiatives,
and privacy training for fusion centers personnel; however, it does not
discuss several new DHS-funded initiatives, including the Future
Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST, a “Minority-Report”-like
proposal for “pre-crime” detection. Also, according to the report the
Transportation Security Administration has still failed to adopt
privacy safeguards for airport body scanners.

Two DHS Privacy Office investigations led to the finding of agency non-
compliance. One of those investigations involved DHS’s use of social
media monitoring. EPIC filed a FOIA request on DHS’ social media
monitoring program in April 2011, then filed suit against DHS in
December 2011 in order to force the disclosure of documents related
to the monitoring program, which searched for both suspicious
“keywords” and dissent against government programs. Earlier in 2012,
Congress held an oversight hearing on the DHS social media monitoring
program, and cited the documents obtained by EPIC.

While the report acknowledges agency shortcomings, it also touts DHS
privacy and transparency training as well public engagement through
speaker series, a redesigned FOIA site, and quarterly privacy advocacy
meetings. Significantly, the report fails to address the lack of timely
notice-and-comment rulemakings, particularly the TSA’s lack of
rulemaking on body scanners, ordered by a court in 2011 in response to
a suit brought by EPIC.

The report discusses DHS’ increased use of Privacy Compliance Reviews
(PCRs), which cover programs including cybersecurity, information
sharing, and the use of social media. The DHS Privacy Office used these
reviews to fail eight of its own agency programs for their lack of
privacy compliance documentation. None of the eight programs are
identified in the report, nor are any details of their lack of privacy
compliance.

The DHS Chief Privacy Office must present annual reports to Congress
and is also required by law to ensure that new agency programs do not
diminish privacy in the US.

Many U.S. police departments are tracking the location of cell phones without a warrant or court supervision, according to an investigation by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Starting last summer, ACLU affiliates around the country began filing hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests with law enforcement agencies to find out about their policies and procedures governing cell-phone location tracking.

Many agencies didn’t respond at all. But based on more than 5,500 pages of documents from the 200 agencies that did respond, the ACLU found that although police departments routinely use cell-phone location tracking in their investigations, “only a tiny minority reported consistently obtaining a warrant and demonstrating probable cause to do so.”

Of all of the recent technological developments that have expanded the surveillance capabilities of law enforcement agencies at the expense of individual privacy, perhaps the most powerful is cell phone location tracking. And now, after an unprecedented records request by ACLU affiliates around the country, we know that this method is widespread and often used without adequate regard for constitutional protections, judicial oversight, or accountability.

Cell phones register their location with the network several times a minute and this function cannot be turned off while the phone is getting a wireless signal. The technology’s threat to personal privacy is breathtaking.

All cell phones register their location with cell phone networks several times a minute, and this function cannot be turned off while the phone is getting a wireless signal. The threat to personal privacy presented by this technology is breathtaking: To know a person’s location over time is to know a great deal about who a person is and what he or she values. As the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. explained:

“A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups — and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.”

The government should have to obtain a warrant based upon probable cause before tracking cell phones. That is what is necessary to protect Americans’ privacy, and it is also what is required under the Constitution. In United States v. Jones, a majority of the Supreme Court recently concluded that the government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it attaches a GPS device to a car and tracks its movements. The conclusion should be no different when the government tracks people through their cell phones, and in both cases a warrant and probable cause should be required.

Until now, how law enforcement agents use cell phone tracking has been largely shrouded in secrecy. What little was known suggested that law enforcement agents frequently tracked cell phones without obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.

In August 2011, 35 ACLU affiliates filed over 380 public records requests with state and local law enforcement agencies to ask about their policies, procedures and practices for tracking cell phones.

What we have learned is disturbing. While virtually all of the over 200 police departments that responded to our request said they track cell phones, only a tiny minority reported consistently obtaining a warrant and demonstrating probable cause to do so. While that result is of great concern, it also shows that a warrant requirement is a completely reasonable and workable policy.

The government’s location tracking policies should be clear, uniform, and protective of privacy, but instead are in a state of chaos, with agencies in different towns following different rules — or in some cases, having no rules at all. It is time for Americans to take back their privacy. Courts should require a warrant based upon probable cause when law enforcement agencies wish to track cell phones. State legislatures and Congress should update obsolete electronic privacy laws to make clear that law enforcement agents should track cell phones only with a warrant.

In a massive coordinated information-seeking campaign, 35 ACLU affiliates filed over 380 requests in 31 states with local law enforcement agencies large and small to uncover when, why and how they are using cell phone location data to track Americans. Click on a state in the map below to see what requests we filed in that state, and what documents we received. Click here to learn more about the requests.

As the result of EPIC v. DHS, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained nearly 300 pages of documents detailing a Department of Homeland Security social media surveillance program. The documents include contracts and statements of work with General Dynamics for 24/7/365 media and social network monitoring and periodic reports to DHS. As part of this contract, General Dynamics was tasked with monitoring media and social networking sites and providing immediate, daily, and weekly summaries to Homeland Security.

The FOIA documents reveal that Homeland Security is tracking criticism and dissent, stating that the contractor should monitor and summarize media stories that “reflect adversely” on DHS or the US government. (Emphasis mine) DHS also says that the agency is attempting to “capture public reaction to major government proposals.”

No one is surprised. The information gathered here will be combined with all of the other data points on us that the government has access to in order to flesh out the threat assessment being performed, on some level, of all of us.

If you are saying nasty or unflattering things about government agencies or their policies, DHS wants to know so that they will be able to offer effective pressure or counter-propaganda to ideas that they find at odds with their aims.

EPIC continues;

The agency instructs the contractor to generate “reports on DHS, Components, and other Federal Agencies: positive and negative reports on FEMA, CIA, CBP, ICE, etc. as well as organizations outside the DHS.”

One tracking report held up by the DHS as a example of what a report should include – “Residents Voice Opposition Over Possible Plan to Bring Guantanamo Detainees to Local Prison-Standish, MI” – summarizes dissent on blogs and social networking cites, quoting commenters on popular social networking sites and news media comment boards.

Ginger McCall, director of the group’s [EPIC] Open Government Program, said it was appropriate for the department to use the Internet to search for emerging threats to public safety. But, she said, monitoring what people are saying about government policies went too far and could chill free speech.

“The Department of Homeland Security’s monitoring of political dissent has no legal basis and is contrary to core First Amendment principles,” she said.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s command center routinely monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks and news and gossip sites including the Huffington Post and Drudge Report, according to a government document.

. . .News and gossip sites on the monitoring list include popular destinations such as the Drudge Report, Huffington Post and “NY Times Lede Blog”, as well as more focused techie fare such as the Wired blogs “Threat Level” and “Danger Room.” Numerous blogs related to terrorism and security are also on the list.

Some of the sites on the list are potentially controversial. WikiLeaks is listed for monitoring, even though officials in some other government agencies were warned against using their official computers to access WikiLeaks material because much of it is still legally classified under U.S. government rules.

Another blog on the list, Cryptome, also periodically posts leaked documents and was one of the first websites to post information related to the Homeland Security monitoring program.

Also on the list are JihadWatch and Informed Comment, blogs that cover issues related to Islam through sharp political prisms, which have sometimes led critics to accuse the sites of political bias

The Department of Homeland Security was court ordered to gain public comment on the body scanners five months ago but to date, has not complied. EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Foundation filed papers today, for the second time, seeking compliance from the DHS.

The DHS in this matter as well as others, seems to think that the agency is above the laws of this country.

EPIC has filed papers [on Dec 32, 2011] in federal court, seeking, for the second time this year, to enforce an order that requires the Department of Homeland
Security to begin a rule making on the controversial airport body
scanner program.

As a result of EPIC’s ongoing lawsuit against DHS,

the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency violated federal law by installing body scanners as primary screening devices without first soliciting public comment.

The Court also held that travelers had a right to opt-out of the airport body scanners.

More than two years ago EPIC and a coalition of civil liberties and
civil rights organizations petitioned Secretary of Homeland Security
Janet Napolitano to provide the public the opportunity to comment on
the program.

Through Freedom of Information Act litigation, EPIC had already obtained
hundreds of traveler complaints, including instances when travelers
said that TSA officials retaliated against them for choosing not to go
through the body scanners. Privacy and traveler advocates, health
and security experts, as well as airline pilots have also raised questions
about the screening procedures.

In July 2011, the Court ordered Homeland Security to “promptly” seek
public comment, but the agency has failed to respond. The Court’s
decision held that “the TSA has not justified its failure to initiatenotice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AITscanners for primary screening.”

The appeals court’s decision states that “None of the exceptions urgedby the TSA justifies its failure to give notice of and receive commentupon such a rule, which is legislative and not merely interpretive,procedural, or a general statement of policy”, adding that “Few, if anyregulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so manymembers of the public.”

In the motion to enforce, EPIC highlighted a recent report by
ProPublica, which described the DHS’s failure to take account of
radiation risks posed by body scanners. EPIC also noted the European
Commission’s recent decision to limit body scanner use within the EU.
The European Commission specifically banned the use of backscatter
x-ray devices in the European airports because of public health
concerns. Meanwhile, DHS is lobbying Congress to increase the use of
these devices in the United States.

David Moss, in response to my info dump on the FBI and their plan to unleash facial recognition on a national scale, provides us with some absolutely critical information and some invaluable advice as well.

In case you are wondering, David Moss is an IT Specialist, Researcher and longtime campaigner against the UK’s biometric ID scheme. He was a guest on AxXiom For Liberty last April when he detailed for us some BIG problems with biometric identification that we often overlook in our outrage over the loss of our privacy and freedoms. (Listen to that show here.)

He is the “Great Bane” of government waste and corruption, in my estimation and I have to confess that when I grow up(figuratively speaking, of course) I want to be just like David Moss.

Facial recognition – Jokesville 1

Once your students have finished Facial Recognition 101, the better ones will have understood that the technology doesn’t work.

Let’s be clear. Don’t let’s mix up our biometrics. They’re not all the same.

DNA, irisprints, traditional fingerprinting – they’re all biometrics worth worrying about from the point of view of privacy. But two-dimensional facial recognition? That’s what Aliya Sternstein’s article is about. That’s the new service being launched nationwide. Forget it. It doesn’t work. It’s jokesville.

At last the suppliers of 2-D facial recognition technology have been lured into a very public demonstration of the reliability or otherwise of their wares. They’ve never had to submit to this discipline before. They’ve never provided any warranties. Now they may find themselves twisting in the wind, hung out to dry, publicly humiliated and exposed as charlatans, mountebanks, snake oil salesmen, astrologers who convince only the simple-minded.

This roll-out is an opportunity. Not a threat. Grab it with both hands, embrace it and enjoy it.

continued …

Facial recognition – Jokesville 2

May I suggest a five-point plan to take advantage of the FBI’s proposed NGI trial?

The idea is to get the trial results widely published so that everyone can see whether they should share the vendors’ confidence in their own products. If not, the FBI can safely drop the technology, without impugning crime-fighting, and public money can be better invested elsewhere (or left with the public, who probably know better how to invest it).

1. Aliya Sternstein’s article says: “FBI officials would not disclose the name of the search product or the vendor”. Time for a freedom of information (FOI) request. This is public money being spent here. No doubt the FBI and the vendor have a mass of confidentiality agreements protecting intellectual property and future commercial interests. Fine. But the public have rights, too. Step #1. Get the names of the vendor and the product being used. There are a lot of people involved in this trial. The FBI, NIST, law enforcement in Michigan, Washington, Florida and North Carolina, Lockheed Martin and, no doubt, others. If FOI doesn’t succeed in getting the names, they’ll leak out from one of those sources.

2. Aliya Sternstein’s article says: “NGI’s incremental construction seems to align with the White House’s push to deploy new information technology in phases so features can be scrapped if they don’t meet expectations or run over budget”. Good. So this roll-out is in the nature of a technology trial. Technology trials can fail. That’s the whole point. That’s scientific method. And if the trial fails, the “features can be scrapped” – that’s what the White House wants. In line with that, step #2, pressure must be brought to bear on the FBI/NGI to run this like a proper trial. The protocol must be published. The trial will be run like this … these are the acceptance criteria … results will be collated like so … and if they don’t meet the criteria, the “features” have failed and will be dropped and no more public money will be wasted on them. This is the upright, responsible, businesslike way to assess the technology. You won’t be putting the FBI on the spot, they won’t have their back to the wall. Having met James A. Loudermilk II of the FBI, I have no doubt that this is exactly the way the FBI would expect to run this trial.

3. Aliya Sternstein’s article says the FBI “gained insights on the technique’s accuracy by studying research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology”. Good. Step #3 – get on to NIST. A long time ago, NIST produced a report on the Face Recognition Vendor Test 2006, NISTIR 7408. They must have more up to date reports, but you could start with this one.

3.1 NISTIR 7408 gets you a list of people to contact – P. Jonathon Phillips, W. Todd Scruggs, Alice J. O’Toole, Patrick J. Flynn, Kevin W.
Bowyer, Cathy L. Schott, Matthew Sharpe. These people are proper academics. They trade on their reputation. They protect their reputation. They speak the truth.

3.3 It gets you a list of the test databases used (p.35). There are five for 2-D facial recognition. Four of them have less than 350 people on them. Those samples are too small to tell anything.

3.4 So we’re only interested in the results of the database with 36,000 people on. The low-resolution images there were gathered under controlled conditions. You can do that with prisoners (which is who NIST and others tend to get their large volume data from). You can’t with mugshots of non-cooperative suspects. The results are in Figure 20 (p.46). Figure 20 measures reliability at three levels – 1 false accept in 100, 1 in a 1,000 and 1 in 10,000. Given that the word is “this is not something where we want to collect a bunch of surveillance film and enter it in the system … that would be useless to us. It would be useless to our users”, presumably the FBI will use 1 in 1,000 or even 1 in 10,000. At those levels, false rejects vary between about 5 in 100 and 18 in 100. Jokers love quoting that bit on p.2 where it says “The FRVT 2006 results from controlled still images and 3D images document an order-of-magnitude improvement in recognition performance over the FRVT 2002″. Some technologies saw an improvement. But not 2-D low resolution facial recognition, that’s shown no improvement at all.

4. Back in 2009, NIST advised the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on the biometrics to use for their Aadhaar scheme. As a result, India has adopted flat print fingerprints and irisprints to identify their 1.2 billion people. Not facial recognition. That has been dropped. It isn’t good enough. And if it isn’t good enough for India, how can it be good enough for the US? Step #4 – get on to NIST again, and maybe the UIDAI.

5. The business schools of the world also tested facial recognition to try to stop “plants” taking exams on behalf of less gifted students. They dropped it. They tested flat print fingerprinting and dropped that. It doesn’t work well enough. Now they’re testing palm veinprints. If facial recognition isn’t good enough for the business schools, how can it be good enough for the FBI? Step #5 – get on to GMAC.

1. The false accept rates mentioned above range from 1 in 100 to 1 in 10,000. What does that mean? It means that the mugshot submitted by Florida law enforcement, or whoever, will falsely match between 1 in 100 and 1 in 10,000 of the 10 million mugshots on the FBI’s database. That means the enquiry will return between 1,000 and 100,000 possible matches. The number can be reduced by excluding the dead people still on the FBI database. But Florida’s still going to have an awful lot of mugshots to look through. It may not be worth it.

2. The false reject rates mentioned above range between 5 in 100 and 18 in 100. So between 5% and 18% of the Florida mugshots submitted will be falsely rejected – i.e. there is a match on file but the software doesn’t find it. Again, it may just not be worth it. Especially as those figures (5%, 18%) were obtained in a lab test, doing just a computer run. In the live, operational environment, the false reject rate is likely to be much higher.

3. (A note for students on Facial recognition 102. When you’re doing a lab test, you should speak about “false match rates” and “false non-match rates”. When you’re doing a field trial, voluntary and co-operative subjects in a simulation of the real environment, you should talk about “false accept rates” and “false reject rates”. And when you’re in the live, operational environment, it’s “false positive identification rates” and “false negative identification rates”.)

4. Professor John Daugman, an American working at Cambridge University, England, and the man who invented irisprinting reckons that there’s no hope for facial recognition, not with big populations, and precious little for flat print fingerprinting. “Irises have about 249 degrees-of-freedom, … whereas faces have only about 20 degrees-of-freedom (independent dimensions of variation), and fingerprints have about 35″. There’s just not enough randomness in faces to make facial recognition useful. Don’t let the FBI spend too much money on this trial before calling it a day.

5. There will be objections to the points made in these three posts. Mr Moss doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Mr Moss confuses 1-to-1 matching with 1-to-many. Mr Moss knows perfectly well that the job the FBI hope to do with this trial is quite different to the UIDAI’s Aadhaar scheme. These objections sound good. But pursue them before accepting them. The objector may not know what he or she is talking about. Mr Moss, unsurprisingly, thinks he does know what he is talking about.

6. Some traps the FBI may like to avoid.

6.1 Back in 1998, the police in the London Borough of Newham had been testing Visionics face recognition technology, claimed by the vendors to have driven crime off the streets of Newham, yeah right!, and were quoted as follows in New Scientist magazine: “… in June this year, the police admitted to The Guardian newspaper that the Newham system had never even matched the face of a person on the street to a photo in its database of known offenders, let alone led to an arrest”. Why that word “admitted”? Because the police had been lured into promoting the success of the technology, they got themselves on the hook, and then – quite properly – they had to get themselves off. The FBI will not want to make the same, embarrassing mistake.

6.2 Here in the UK we use ePassport technology at 10 of our airports to try to get people through security quickly. If your face matches the biometric template in your passport, you’re through, otherwise not. Does this facial recognition technology work? Sometimes the UK Border Agency say it does, no qualifications. Other times they say it’s still under trial. In the end, we settled on the latter. Lin Homer, the Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency in February 2010 wrote to me saying: “We plan to evaluate all 10 sites. Evaluation of Manchester gave us enough confidence to proceed to expand the trial. We are aware that different environments may impact the use of facial recognition technology, we therefore wished to determine and compare results from more diverse airport environments to ensure the technology is robust and consistent”. The Independent Chief Inspector of UKBA inspected Manchester Airport in May 2010, three months after that letter, he described a number of problems with the ePassport technology and then said at para.5.29 “We could find no overall plan to evaluate the success or otherwise of the facial recognition gates at Manchester Airport and would urge the Agency to do so soon as possible”. Oops.

First I hear about the” Little Red School Bus” Young Communist Tour around the country and now this. Our Governors are getting cozy with the Red Chinese while the Little Red Communist School Bus tools around the country. Swell.

The fact that our economy in the crapper, so many people are out of work and we seem to be embroilment in endless war presents a fabulous recruiting opportunity according to the Communist Party.

OK-SAFE wrote this interesting article yesterday that informs us that on July 15-17, 2011 Governor Fallin will be pairing up one on one with Chinese dignitaries to talk about issues like job creation, education and health at a US-China Governors Forum in Salt Lake City Utah. If you are very curious about just what will be going on at this meeting you are going to have to stifle it. This is to be a closed door meeting. No media or public will be permitted to attend.

Mary Fallin appears to be primed for it.

Here is a press release regarding an recent visit to the Oklahoma State Capitol by dignitaries from the Chinese Consulate. The article was published on the website for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China but I didn’t see this in the local news.

The press release says that Gov.Fallin and Lt.Gov Todd Lamb met with three Chinese Consulate dignitaries including Consul General Gao Yanping at the Oklahoma Capitol to discuss “exchanges and cooperation between China and Oklahoma in all fields”

Apparently Gov. Fallin has been very enthusiastic about China-U.S. exchanges ever since she was the Lt. Gov.

According to the article, Lt Gov. Lamb praised China’s “time-honored civilization and robust development” and indicated that” Oklahoma is looking forward to expanding its exchanges and cooperation with China to a wider and deeper extent.” and that Lt. Gov. Lamb expressed hopes of visiting China soon.

The Consul General Gao said she “expected the two sides to strengthen exchanges and cooperation so as to bring more trade, investment and job opportunities and other tangible benefits to the two peoples.”

The meeting in Utah between our state Governors and Chinese provincial party secretaries and Governors will be the first of two according to OK-SAFE who is has filed a Freedom of Information request in order to locate documents that should be publicly available in order to find out more.

Border workers push for biometric screening in perimeter security plan with U.S.

By Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Canada’s front-line border officers back the idea of a perimeter security arrangement with the United States, with a few caveats.

The Customs and Immigration Union wants more intensive screening of travellers, including a biometric face-recognition tool to pinpoint security threats and wanted criminals.

And it’s pushing for an end to closures and reduced hours at land-border crossings.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama have signed an agreement that could lead to a formal North American security perimeter.

The union’s submission, part of a federal consultation on the initiative, was obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. Union president Ron Moran was unavailable Tuesday.

The perimeter arrangement is aimed at expanding joint operations on security while allowing for smoother flow of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. border. The federal government says an ambitious joint-action plan should be ready this summer.

Critics contend a border deal would endanger Canadian sovereignty and federal control of personal information.

ASU hosts model North American Union legislature

The sixth edition of the Triumvirate, the only trinational inter-parliamentary student simulation in North America, will take place from May 29 through June 3. Organized by ASU and the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) from Montreal, the event will bring together about 50 students from seven American, Canadian and Mexican universities.

University student participants from Mexico, the United States and Canada participate in a week-long simulation exercise simulating a congressional meeting between North American legislators. Student delegates are assigned one of the three roles: legislator (representing a country other than their own), journalist, or lobbyist. The legislators will debate themes of a political, economic and environmental nature, while lobbyists will attempt to influence the legislators’ decisions and the TrilatHerald journalist team will analyze the evolution of the debates.

Trentadue this week filed exhibits pertaining to FBI procedures for filing documents while keeping them out of legal disclosure processes such as FOIA or discovery. The exhibits were provided to INTELWIRE by Trentadue.

. . . On May 11, Trentadue says he was in court demanding information from the I-drive when the Department of Justice lawyer representing the FBI mentioned the existence of the S-drive — the first public mention of such a drive. Judge Clark Waddoups, a George W. Bush appointee who was presiding over the case in Utah, ordered the FBI to provide more information about the drive by the end of June.

Two days later, Waddoups issued his written order on the matter, which demanded the FBI affirm whether it had provided “incomplete or otherwise misleading information” to the court and demanded that the bureau search for anything requested by Trentadue on both the I and S drives in response to his FOIA requests.

By Jerry Bohnen/NewsRadio 1000 KTOK ~ The federal government attempted in 2005 to reach a deal with bomber Terry Nichols to take the death penalty off the table in his Oklahoma murder trial if he admitted to making a warning phone call to the FBI the day before the 1995 bombing, according to new documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The documents were released to Jesse Trentadue, the Salt Lake City attorney who’s been in a 15-year fight with the federal government to prove his brother, Kenneth Trentadue, was mistakenly beaten to death during an FBI interrogation because he closely resembled a man who ran with Tim McVeigh in robbing banks.

FBI Lab Took Nearly Three Years To Analyze Terry Nichols Bomb Cache

The FBI Laboratory took 34 months to check for fingerprints on a cache of explosives hidden by Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, according to new documents released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act.

The cache of explosives was discovered in 2005 in connection with a threat that they would be used in an act of domestic terrorism and a claim that the fingerprints might point to an unindicted co-conspirator in the Oklahoma City bombing.

The documents were obtained by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue.

Trentadue this week filed exhibits pertaining to FBI procedures for filing documents while keeping them out of legal disclosure processes such as FOIA or discovery. The exhibits were provided to INTELWIRE by Trentadue.